Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Rents forecast to rise by 17%
Options
-
08-04-2019 8:43am#1Christ, when does this shi*e end? You know it’s all hit the fan when the UN are worried.
https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rents-to-soar-again-as-cuckoo-fund-housebuying-hits-record-37992104.html3
Comments
-
There's no information on how Savills came up with their 17%.
It also doesn't help that the article is pushing multi-year figures. Savills have claimed that rents will push up to 17% by the end of 2021. Or 8.5% per year this year and next year.
I'm skeptical of that figure, since rent increases have been on a gentle downward slide since the end of 2016, and property prices as a whole have seen 3 consecutive months of negative growth.
The purchase of lots of units by massive property holders also doesn't follow that rent prices will increase. In fact it points to more stability in the market since these investors operate on the long-term and work at scale. Small landlords will flee the market at the first hiccup or increase rents at the first ray of sunshine.
Larger investors don't.
There should of course be a concern with large multinationals becoming massive landlords. Because they have the money to influence politics, reduce tenant protects and even erode the property rights of other land owners nearby.
But in a market like ours which has been run by small landlords for generations, we should welcome the introduction of a more formal and professional type of landlord, as it can also have the effect of forcing improvements in tenant protections.
The one thing not called out in this article, is that Dublin needs to build upwards. End of. That alone would have a massive knock-on effect across the rest of the county and country.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19033
The Gov are paying out €50 million a year to hotels and B&Bs for homeless people, yet not building social housing. On top of that they are also subsidising private landlords with HAP payments, but not building social housing.
Who are those homeless people? Where do they come from? I'm would like some analysis so that the problem can be solved at source. Now, having people spending over 50% of the disposable income on housing is not sustainable, so social housing is what was used in the past to provide housing for low income families, so why not now?
Now, could some of the homeless be housed using schemes like the rural resettlement that existed pre=tiger days? How many existing social houses are boarded up? How many empty houses are not being used?
Could more aggressive targets be set for developments to have higher social housing content?
All tenants need security of tenure - providing they pay the rent and are not anti-social. If we need a constitutional amendment to redefine property rights and provide a reasonable statement giving citizens the right to shelter/housing, then that should be done.
I heard that banks do not provide bridging finance for elderly people wishing to down-size, so how could they move? Sell first and become homeless, or buy first and become bankrupt? Surely a simple problem to fix.
Clearly the Gov are not providing even half a solution.0 -
Your third paragraph is highly inaccurate. Rents are increasing, not declining. Please produce some information to support such a wildly inaccurate statement.There's no information on how Savills came up with their 17%.
It also doesn't help that the article is pushing multi-year figures. Savills have claimed that rents will push up to 17% by the end of 2021. Or 8.5% per year this year and next year.
I'm skeptical of that figure, since rent increases have been on a gentle downward slide since the end of 2016, and property prices as a whole have seen 3 consecutive months of negative growth.
The purchase of lots of units by massive property holders also doesn't follow that rent prices will increase. In fact it points to more stability in the market since these investors operate on the long-term and work at scale. Small landlords will flee the market at the first hiccup or increase rents at the first ray of sunshine.
Larger investors don't.
There should of course be a concern with large multinationals becoming massive landlords. Because they have the money to influence politics, reduce tenant protects and even erode the property rights of other land owners nearby.
But in a market like ours which has been run by small landlords for generations, we should welcome the introduction of a more formal and professional type of landlord, as it can also have the effect of forcing improvements in tenant protections.
The one thing not called out in this article, is that Dublin needs to build upwards. End of. That alone would have a massive knock-on effect across the rest of the county and country.0 -
There's no information on how Savills came up with their 17%.
It also doesn't help that the article is pushing multi-year figures. Savills have claimed that rents will push up to 17% by the end of 2021. Or 8.5% per year this year and next year.
I'm skeptical of that figure, since rent increases have been on a gentle downward slide since the end of 2016, and property prices as a whole have seen 3 consecutive months of negative growth.
The purchase of lots of units by massive property holders also doesn't follow that rent prices will increase. In fact it points to more stability in the market since these investors operate on the long-term and work at scale. Small landlords will flee the market at the first hiccup or increase rents at the first ray of sunshine.
Larger investors don't.
There should of course be a concern with large multinationals becoming massive landlords. Because they have the money to influence politics, reduce tenant protects and even erode the property rights of other land owners nearby.
But in a market like ours which has been run by small landlords for generations, we should welcome the introduction of a more formal and professional type of landlord, as it can also have the effect of forcing improvements in tenant protections.
The one thing not called out in this article, is that Dublin needs to build upwards. End of. That alone would have a massive knock-on effect across the rest of the county and country.
They had a rep on Newstalk this morning. The forecast was over 3 years beginning January '18, so we're ~15 months in to it.0 -
Your third paragraph is highly inaccurate. Rents are increasing, not declining. Please produce some information to support such a wildly inaccurate statement.
He said the increases were declining.
I agree with people who say that Dublin should build up. However go into the accommodation and property forum every time somebody asks about buying an appartment or a house and every reply says house.
To be fair many of the Celtic tiger appartments were so shoddily made that they have all got potential problems, sometimes dangerous problems like fire issues, and fixing these problems is a potential future cost. Word gets out.
Meanwhile London is 50% appartments.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16291
Want to fix the lack of housing in Dublin? Remove the cap on the height of buildings in and around the city center. But oh no that would ruin the scenic view for some people which can not be allowed... Second to this would be dedicated fast speed commuter lanes with trains/rail from areas outside Dublin that don't need to cross roads/get priority etc. to ensure people can live outside of Dublin and still work there with in reason (i.e. no bus BS that compete with everyone else on the road).
To Sam on why social housing does not work; because it's to expensive to build a house/apartment. Last time I checked about half the cost went away in various permits and land and not in actual materials or the construction itself. If it costs you 200k EUR to build an house you're not going to see builders selling them for 150k to get new people on to the market. Which goes back to social housing again; why are not more built? Because once built they need to be maintained but as already established by yourself people can't afford it so the state is now to not only build the house (big investment), run it (big ongoing costs since people don't own it they don't tend to care about maintenance) while at the same time telling your mid income salary couple that suck it up butter cup you get to pay 250k for your house along with higher taxes so Joe down the street there who never bothered to finish college due to smoking pot can have a free/greatly subsidized apartment which of course has to meet "normal" standards because if not it would be a social outcry of stigmatization of people in social housing.
Now compare that with your 50 million in B&B/hotel; let's be generous and say the state somehow can get things built at 100k an house; fees etc. we call left pocket/right pocket so a new house slammed up for a mere 100k using existing government land. That would still only create 500 houses in a year which would be no were near to cover the people for said 50 million and that's assuming some very generous assumptions on the cost of construction, free land etc. in the first place. Which one will go down well in an election (and that's before we talk about real life economics of it all)?0 -
Want to fix the lack of housing in Dublin? Remove the cap on the height of buildings in and around the city center. But oh no that would ruin the scenic view for some people which can not be allowed... Second to this would be dedicated fast speed commuter lanes with trains/rail from areas outside Dublin that don't need to cross roads/get priority etc. to ensure people can live outside of Dublin and still work there with in reason (i.e. no bus BS that compete with everyone else on the road).
To Sam on why social housing does not work; because it's to expensive to build a house/apartment. Last time I checked about half the cost went away in various permits and land and not in actual materials or the construction itself. If it costs you 200k EUR to build an house you're not going to see builders selling them for 150k to get new people on to the market. Which goes back to social housing again; why are not more built? Because once built they need to be maintained but as already established by yourself people can't afford it so the state is now to not only build the house (big investment), run it (big ongoing costs since people don't own it they don't tend to care about maintenance) while at the same time telling your mid income salary couple that suck it up butter cup you get to pay 250k for your house along with higher taxes so Joe down the street there who never bothered to finish college due to smoking pot can have a free/greatly subsidized apartment which of course has to meet "normal" standards because if not it would be a social outcry of stigmatization of people in social housing.
Now compare that with your 50 million in B&B/hotel; let's be generous and say the state somehow can get things built at 100k an house; fees etc. we call left pocket/right pocket so a new house slammed up for a mere 100k using existing government land. That would still only create 500 houses in a year which would be no were near to cover the people for said 50 million and that's assuming some very generous assumptions on the cost of construction, free land etc. in the first place. Which one will go down well in an election (and that's before we talk about real life economics of it all)?
The economics here is off. You are taking savings from not having people hotels (yearly costs) and building the houses with the savings. That’s not the way to think about it.
The way to build housing is with debt, dedicated debt preferably. That’s how the private sector does it.
The question then is if the government or council gets a 30 year bond of 1 billion to build housing what is the yearly cost of servicing that loan (minus the rent received from the owners) compared to paying HAP for the same number of people housed. After the loan expires the housing generates income, as opposed to being a cost.0 -
-
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »The economics here is off. You are taking savings from not having people hotels (yearly costs) and building the houses with the savings. That’s not the way to think about it.
The way to build housing is with debt, dedicated debt preferably. That’s how the private sector does it.
The question then is if the government or council gets a 30 year bond of 1 billion to build housing what is the yearly cost of servicing that loan (minus the rent received from the owners) compared to paying HAP for the same number of people housed. After the loan expires the housing generates income, as opposed to being a cost.
That's based on the extremely shaky assumption that the rental is higher than the cost to maintain the property (and that the rent is actually paid).0 -
blackwhite wrote: »That's based on the extremely shaky assumption that the rental is higher than the cost to maintain the property (and that the rent is actually paid).
Even if the rent isn't paid when the council house loan is paid off, the only cost is maintenance which is probably a lot less than paying HAP unless thousands of euro worth of maintenance is needed per month.
Arrears aren't as problematic as people think.
https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-rents-4399149-Dec2018/0 -
Advertisement
-
blackwhite wrote: »That's based on the extremely shaky assumption that the rental is higher than the cost to maintain the property (and that the rent is actually paid).
Do you pay 800-1000 a month on maintenance? How do these landlords and hoteliers survive I wonder?
Many of the houses built as social housing in the 1930's onward are still standing.
How many banks refuse to provide any mortgages to anyone because some might default? Hotel bills and private landlord rents are the alternative. That's your tax payer paying 'something for nothing'.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Do you pay 800-1000 a month on maintenance? How do these landlords and hoteliers survive I wonder?
Many of the houses built as social housing in the 1930's onward are still standing.
How many banks refuse to provide any mortgages to anyone because some might default? Hotel bills and private landlord rents are the alternative. That's your tax payer paying 'something for nothing'.
The claim was that social housing would "generate income" - with a fairly hefty assumption underpinning it.
As usual you seem to want it to pretend it was something else and drag things down a wormhole. But please - continue to argue against strawmen if it makes you feel good about yourself :rolleyes:0 -
blackwhite wrote: »The claim was that social housing would "generate income" - with a fairly hefty assumption underpinning it.
It does generate income. The only hefty assumption was yours - that maintenance costs are greater than rental income in all cases.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »The claim was that social housing would "generate income" - with a fairly hefty assumption underpinning it.
As usual you seem to want it to pretend it was something else and drag things down a wormhole. But please - continue to argue against strawmen if it makes you feel good about yourself :rolleyes:
On that note, my questions relate to your points, can you answer them? The topic is generating income, but you can still elaborate on your comment no?
Feel free to point out any strawman or ignore the questions, as is your right of course.
You seem to be saying it might not because the assumption is rent possibly being higher than maintenance, I ask, do you pay 800-1000 a month maintenance, can you justify that? No strawman.
As regarding rent being actually paid, are you suggesting people not paying rent can justify or be used as a reason for not building our own housing? People default on mortgages, so should banks stop issuing mortgages by that logic?
Again, if you just want to throw these things out there with no intent on follow through, asking for same isn't a strawman.
I would agree profit from a house we built to rent to ourselves is more likely than profiting or making money back on HAP schemes, PPP and or Hotels. In the least we'd be left with housing stock rather than the bill.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,141 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 35130
blackwhite wrote: »The claim was that social housing would "generate income" - with a fairly hefty assumption underpinning it.
As usual you seem to want it to pretend it was something else and drag things down a wormhole. But please - continue to argue against strawmen if it makes you feel good about yourself :rolleyes:
If all you have to add is snide comments do not post in this forum please.We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.
H. H. Asquith
0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »It does generate income. The only hefty assumption was yours - that maintenance costs are greater than rental income in all cases.
I never stated that was my assumption at all. Please don't pretend I claimed something that I clearly did not.
I assume you can provide proof that social housing units are a net income generator for the state then - seeing as you are stating it as fact?
I've gone through the Dublin City Council annual report in the past, and they don't provide the detail needed to support or refute the claim. If you've other evidence then I'd love to see it TBH. The councils (plural) tend to go out of their way to avoid providing enough detail to assess whether there's a cost or an income from their housing stock.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »On that note, my questions relate to your points, can you answer them? The topic is generating income, but you can still elaborate on your comment no?
Feel free to point out any strawman or ignore the questions, as is your right of course.
You seem to be saying it might not because the assumption is rent possibly being higher than maintenance, I ask, do you pay 800-1000 a month maintenance, can you justify that? No strawman.
As regarding rent being actually paid, are you suggesting people not paying rent can justify or be used as a reason for not building our own housing? People default on mortgages, so should banks stop issuing mortgages by that logic?
Again, if you just want to throw these things out there with no intent on follow through, asking for same isn't a strawman.
I would agree profit from a house we built to rent to ourselves is more likely than profiting or making money back on HAP schemes, PPP and or Hotels. In the least we'd be left with housing stock rather than the bill.
How many council tenants are paying €800 a month or more in rental?
Given the income limit is generally in the region of €35k PA, and the max rental is 15% of income, that would give a very maximum rental payable to the council of approximately half that.
Average maintence costs of €4-5k a year over a 10-20 year period wouldn't be unusual at all, given the need for periodic significant expenditures on top of the "ordinary" maintenance needed on a regular basis0 -
Hmmmm.
I wonder would Savills benefit from a bit of hype or people "panic buying". You know, those people who were delaying purchases in order to see how Brexit pans out......might be good for the profits if they all rushed in and started bidding against each other now0 -
blackwhite wrote: »How many council tenants are paying €800 a month or more in rental?
That's fair. None I would imagine.
How many are paying that using our tax monies to private landlords? This is the problem.
Council tenants renting council owned property could be paying rents capable of covering all costs and possibly garnering some profit, while still being at an affordable rate to the tenant, (which profit or not, is a better deal for the tax payer than paying 800 odd to a private landlord with nothing to show).Given the income limit is generally in the region of €35k PA, and the max rental is 15% of income, that would give a very maximum rental payable to the council of approximately half that.
Average maintence costs of €4-5k a year over a 10-20 year period wouldn't be unusual at all, given the need for periodic significant expenditures on top of the "ordinary" maintenance needed on a regular basis
A loose but not ridiculous summation. We need to stop thinking of housing only being a problem for the poor and working poor. We could be building and renting to people on a reasonable salary who currently require state aid for rentals. There is room for breaking even on costs and in some cases profiting. The affordable housing model for example. Builds sold above cost but at reasonable rates.
Paying rent to private concerns is not working and is costing a fortune as things get worse.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »I never stated that was my assumption at all. Please don't pretend I claimed something that I clearly did not.
You claimed that my assumption that they do generate income was a hefty assumption. This to any reasonable reader would suggest you don’t believe that do.I assume you can provide proof that social housing units are a net income generator for the state then - seeing as you are stating it as fact?
The assumption that monthly rental income exceeds monthly maintenance cost is hardly a radical suggestion even if rent is low.I've gone through the Dublin City Council annual report in the past, and they don't provide the detail needed to support or refute the claim. If you've other evidence then I'd love to see it TBH. The councils (plural) tend to go out of their way to avoid providing enough detail to assess whether there's a cost or an income from their housing stock.
I linked already to a journal piece on council revenue. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, your claim needs the proof not mine.
However this segue was from a post I made when I said that after the cost of any loan is paid off council housing would provide income. Even if that weren’t true it’s certainly cheaper than paying 1,000 plus in rent.0 -
Advertisement
-
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
I linked already to a journal piece on council revenue. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, your claim needs the proof not mine.
However this segue was from a post I made when I said that after the cost of any loan is paid off council housing would provide income. Even if that weren’t true it’s certainly cheaper than paying 1,000 plus in rent.
You linked to an overall revenue number. Tells us nothing about the revenue per unit, and certainly nothing about the cost to maintain each unit. But if you can’t back up your claim I guess it’s much easier to go after anyone who dares to question you on it.
I’d argue that paying €1000 per month in rent for a fixed period of time until the tenant works themself into a position to look after themselves, and a time when the housing stock has regularised again is cheaper in the long run than setting setting up a subsidised tenant for life.
There seems to be an ideological desire to have as big a proportion of the population as possible suckling on the state teat for life, instead of giving short term supports when needed but with the ultimate aim of having as many people as possible actually look after themselves0 -
blackwhite wrote: »You linked to an overall revenue number. Tells us nothing about the revenue per unit, and certainly nothing about the cost to maintain each unit. But if you can’t back up your claim I guess it’s much easier to go after anyone who dares to question you on it.
I’d argue that paying €1000 per month in rent for a fixed period of time until the tenant works themself into a position to look after themselves, and a time when the housing stock has regularised again is cheaper in the long run than setting setting up a subsidised tenant for life.
There seems to be an ideological desire to have as big a proportion of the population as possible suckling on the state teat for life, instead of giving short term supports when needed but with the ultimate aim of having as many people as possible actually look after themselves
Thanks for this. You're the first person I can recall who put forward an alternative outside of attacking any ideas that go against the current FF/FG policies.
You couldn't fix the period of time. We can't say when the fortunes of individuals or the market may change in their favour.
A subsidised tenant would be no different. They are subsidised based on income, as would the tenant in private housing being subsidised.
This for me is a big part of the problem, for some reason people, mistakenly IMO, see the tax payer funding rents to private concerns as preferable to the tax payer being the landlord.
The same concerns can be raised by both avenues: the people being subsidised by 1000 a month might never get a larger income or be able to afford to house themselves as much as the person in a council house paying subsidised rent. The only difference is we would own the house and any rents accrued go to the tax payer. The other way we pay the 1000 or whatever to the private landlord and have nothing to show for it, possibly for many years.
How do you measure these short term supports? As regards maintenance, I'm pretty sure landlords have that worked into their rent, including a nice profit.
As regards not paying rent, tenants enter into a contract which includes their responsibilities on up keep and maintenance. As with mortgage defaulters, we improve the process not scrap it.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Thanks for this. You're the first person I can recall who put forward an alternative outside of attacking any ideas that go against the current FF/FG policies.
You couldn't fix the period of time. We can't say when the fortunes of individuals or the market may change in their favour.
A subsidised tenant would be no different. They are subsidised based on income, as would the tenant in private housing being subsidised.
This for me is a big part of the problem, for some reason people, mistakenly IMO, see the tax payer funding rents to private concerns as preferable to the tax payer being the landlord.
The same concerns can be raised by both avenues: the people being subsidised by 1000 a month might never get a larger income or be able to afford to house themselves as much as the person in a council house paying subsidised rent. The only difference is we would own the house and any rents accrued go to the tax payer. The other way we pay the 1000 or whatever to the private landlord and have nothing to show for it, possibly for many years.
How do you measure these short term supports? As regards maintenance, I'm pretty sure landlords have that worked into their rent, including a nice profit.
As regards not paying rent, tenants enter into a contract which includes their responsibilities on up keep and maintenance. As with mortgage defaulters, we improve the process not scrap it.
I agree that we to increase the level of state-owned social housing, but I fundamentally disagree that we should be building houses to cover the numbers currently on our housing lists.
We should only have state-owned housing to cover our long-term requirements - not a short-term spike caused by a 10-year slump in private sector housing construction.
State-owned housing should cover the long-term requirements, with temporary provision from the private sector (the state could rent on 1, 3 or 5 year agreements as needed) to cover period spikes in demand.
Improve the supply in the private sector, and we'll see rental levels return to more sustainable levels except in the most sought-after locations.
Social housing in general needs a radical reform - provision of state-subsidised housing should only be for as long as there is a genuine need. The current system of "forever homes" needs to be scrapped. If someone reaches a point where they can afford to pay full market rental then they should be given the choice of either vacating the council house, buying the council house as actual market value or paying market rate rentals to the council (which would fund the council to rent a house privately to house another family). If the tenant buys the council house then the funds should be ring-fenced for the council to build/purchase a replacement unit.
Tenants in council houses should have their need (i.e. actual needs, not their wants) assessed every 5-10 years. If found that they are in a bigger unit than they require then they need to be moved to free up the unit for a family with genuine needs; if they are in a high-demand area then their need to be there should be compared to the needs of others on the social housing list who also "need" to be that high-demand area.
The higher the level of social housing provision, the more it gets abused. Keep it to the lowest level possible to satisfy our long-term requirements, and the scope for it to be abused is reduced.
Suckling on the state teat for every requirement in your life shouldn't be made as easy as possible - there should be every incentive possible for people to try and support themselves, and to wean themselves away from relying on state subsidies.
The current system certainly doesn't do that, and IMO a system where the state is sitting on a massive housing stock would only create an even bigger culture of state-dependence.Matt Barrett wrote: »As with mortgage defaulters, we improve the process not scrap it.
The thing is - any time there is any effort to improve the system to tackle tenants not living up to their responsibilities, we have the types of politicians that you consistently advocate leading the charge to protest the changes. The only "improvements" the parties of the left are interested in are changes that further increase dependency on the state, all at the long-term expense of taxpayers.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »I agree that we to increase the level of state-owned social housing, but I fundamentally disagree that we should be building houses to cover the numbers currently on our housing lists.
We should only have state-owned housing to cover our long-term requirements - not a short-term spike caused by a 10-year slump in private sector housing construction.
State-owned housing should cover the long-term requirements, with temporary provision from the private sector (the state could rent on 1, 3 or 5 year agreements as needed) to cover period spikes in demand.
I agree. Enough supplied until a reasonable amount of working people can be expected to be able to afford accommodation without rent aid.
I would suggest the virtual cut off from building social housing for many years, pre crash is what has us in crisis.
This is no spike. We'd need see a drop on the horizon before we can call it a spike. Also spikes tend to be short lived, we are looking at a decade of ongoing worsening circumstances. That's not a spike.blackwhite wrote: »Improve the supply in the private sector, and we'll see rental levels return to more sustainable levels except in the most sought-after locations.
Yet we are supplying properties to and giving custom to the private sector. A run on private builds will need be maintained for some time before any glut causes a cooling in rents or sale prices and I don't think that's possible.blackwhite wrote: »Social housing in general needs a radical reform - provision of state-subsidised housing should only be for as long as there is a genuine need.
Completely agree.blackwhite wrote: »The current system of "forever homes" needs to be scrapped.
I don't know what this is. It's my understanding it's a term generally used by people who don't want anyone getting 'freebies' for no good reason. As I understand it we've a system in place for vetting need. Maybe that needs adjusting but nobody should be getting any state funded accommodation for any amount of time unless needed. I believe that's been the policy for decades.blackwhite wrote: »If someone reaches a point where they can afford to pay full market rental then they should be given the choice of either vacating the council house, buying the council house as actual market value or paying market rate rentals to the council (which would fund the council to rent a house privately to house another family).
I believe this is currently the case. Has been for decades. Nobody is earning a high salary and receiving rental subsidy in a private or council home unless committing fraud.blackwhite wrote: »If the tenant buys the council house then the funds should be ring-fenced for the council to build/purchase a replacement unit.
Agree.blackwhite wrote: »Tenants in council houses should have their need (i.e. actual needs, not their wants) assessed every 5-10 years. If found that they are in a bigger unit than they require then they need to be moved to free up the unit for a family with genuine needs; if they are in a high-demand area then their need to be there should be compared to the needs of others on the social housing list who also "need" to be that high-demand area.
Again, I believe this is currently the case. Not sure on the time between assessments.blackwhite wrote: »The higher the level of social housing provision, the more it gets abused. Keep it to the lowest level possible to satisfy our long-term requirements, and the scope for it to be abused is reduced.
I agree, but more people equates to more chancers, that's not to take away from the model IMO.blackwhite wrote: »Suckling on the state teat for every requirement in your life shouldn't be made as easy as possible - there should be every incentive possible for people to try and support themselves, and to wean themselves away from relying on state subsidies.
The current system certainly doesn't do that, and IMO a system where the state is sitting on a massive housing stock would only create an even bigger culture of state-dependence.
But it already does. Welfare is assessed as is rental subsidy, small business grants etc. Only those in need or fraudsters can avail of state aid.
You are proven wrong here. A generation or so ago social housing provided homes for hundreds of thousands of people, who went on to buy the homes and make a self sufficient life for their families. It's cutting back on social housing builds has us were we are IMO.blackwhite wrote: »The thing is - any time there is any effort to improve the system to tackle tenants not living up to their responsibilities, we have the types of politicians that you consistently advocate leading the charge to protest the changes.
I never supported, nor know of, any politician or party who advocates for or supports people willfully defrauding the system. If they believe people are being treated unfairly that's something I support defending.blackwhite wrote: »The only "improvements" the parties of the left are interested in are changes that further increase dependency on the state, all at the long-term expense of taxpayers.
Can you give any examples? Maybe your idea of 'improvements' are unfair?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I agree. Enough supplied until a reasonable amount of working people can be expected to be able to afford accommodation without rent aid.
I would suggest the virtual cut off from building social housing for many years, pre crash is what has us in crisis.
This is no spike. We'd need see a drop on the horizon before we can call it a spike. Also spikes tend to be short lived, we are looking at a decade of ongoing worsening circumstances. That's not a spike.
Yet we are supplying properties to and giving custom to the private sector. A run on private builds will need be maintained for some time before any glut causes a cooling in rents or sale prices and I don't think that's possible.
https://www.realestatealliance.ie/report
House prices are already showing signs of falling, and rent increases are slowing. Combined with likely global economic slowdown in the coming years then all the signs are that the rental and property markets are showing the steps on the path back to regularisation.
Please drop the disingenuous BS - you've been active on countless threads where the term is used and discussed. Pretending not to know what it means it petty childish BS - why bother with that type of baiting rubbish?Matt Barrett wrote: »
I don't know what this is. It's my understanding it's a term generally used by people who don't want anyone getting 'freebies' for no good reason. As I understand it we've a system in place for vetting need. Maybe that needs adjusting but nobody should be getting any state funded accommodation for any amount of time unless needed. I believe that's been the policy for decades.
I believe this is currently the case. Has been for decades. Nobody is earning a high salary and receiving rental subsidy in a private or council home unless committing fraud.
Again, I believe this is currently the case. Not sure on the time between assessments.
Once a council tenancy is granted by a Local Authority, then the tenant cannot be evicted unless they engage in anti-social behaviour, or fail to pay their rent over a prolonged period of time.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/notice_to_quit_and_eviction.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/21/enacted/en/index.html
The decision on whether to grant a council house is purely based on the circumstances at the time of the grant - there's no reassessment of need ever again, simply a reassessment of rental. But the rentals are always calculated a percentage of income, never actually assessed against what the "market" rent for the same area would be in reality.
Reassessments on the suitability of the house are only made at the tenants request, there's no council-led reassessment to see whether tenants are living in high-demand locations when they no longer need to be there, or whether tenants homes are bigger than their current needs dictate (thus blocking the homes from larger families).
We have TDs sitting in the Dáil who are living in council houses. They could easily afford to rent or buy privately but instead are blocking those homes from being reassigned. A proper system wouldn't allow them to do this.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/murphy-not-living-in-the-real-world-with-harsh-housing-proposal-opposition-tds-claim-905909.html
Here's a prime example of the usual parties howling in indignation at anything that doesn't pander to the welfare classes.
If someone is in desperate need of housing, then they should never be refusing accommodation twice in a 12 month period.
The people in society who pay they own way will end up living where they can afford to live, not throwing their toys out of the pram because they aspire to live in Foxrock but can't afford to.
As usual, we get the combined "wisdom" of Murphy and Boyd-Barrett demanding that those who are being subsidised by the taxpayer should be given greater choices in housing than the people who pay their own way.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »The economics here is off. You are taking savings from not having people hotels (yearly costs) and building the houses with the savings. That’s not the way to think about it.
The way to build housing is with debt, dedicated debt preferably. That’s how the private sector does it.
The question then is if the government or council gets a 30 year bond of 1 billion to build housing what is the yearly cost of servicing that loan (minus the rent received from the owners) compared to paying HAP for the same number of people housed. After the loan expires the housing generates income, as opposed to being a cost.
The government or council won't be able to get a bond to build housing because of the inability to evict and repossess.
There is a premium on Irish mortgage rates, mostly because of the repossession issue.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »...
Please drop the disingenuous BS - you've been active on countless threads where the term is used and discussed. Pretending not to know what it means it petty childish BS - why bother with that type of baiting rubbish?
Be fair. It's used by different people to mean different things. What's wrong with wanting a stable home? 'forever home' is used as a derogatory term, generally followed by 'them that want everything for nothing'. It ignores the majority who are hard working tax payers. It's a phrase that makes it difficult for me to take the user genuinely. Again, depends on the context and the users intent.blackwhite wrote: »Once a council tenancy is granted by a Local Authority, then the tenant cannot be evicted unless they engage in anti-social behaviour, or fail to pay their rent over a prolonged period of time.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/notice_to_quit_and_eviction.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/21/enacted/en/index.html
Sounds great to this tax payer. Also:All tenants pay differential rent, that is the rent of your home will vary according to the total family size and household income, so if your family circumstances change--please let us know , as your rent may change too
http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council-your-area-north-west-area-what-services-do-we-provide-ballymun/rentblackwhite wrote: »The decision on whether to grant a council house is purely based on the circumstances at the time of the grant - there's no reassessment of need ever again, simply a reassessment of rental. But the rentals are always calculated a percentage of income, never actually assessed against what the "market" rent for the same area would be in reality.
Reassessments on the suitability of the house are only made at the tenants request, there's no council-led reassessment to see whether tenants are living in high-demand locations when they no longer need to be there, or whether tenants homes are bigger than their current needs dictate (thus blocking the homes from larger families).
These allowances are all subject to change. We should only lookat market prices when considering the need for new builds of social housing, is there a need, do we see a need? etc.
High demand locations are irrelevant IMO. Selling up council lands to sell to private property developers because areas become popular was part of the making of the current crisis. They are there to serve the people not run a company for profit to the detriment of serving the people IMO.blackwhite wrote: »We have TDs sitting in the Dáil who are living in council houses. They could easily afford to rent or buy privately but instead are blocking those homes from being reassigned. A proper system wouldn't allow them to do this.
I agree. They should be forced to buy at market rates or forced to move.blackwhite wrote: »Here's a prime example of the usual parties howling in indignation at anything that doesn't pander to the welfare classes.
If someone is in desperate need of housing, then they should never be refusing accommodation twice in a 12 month period.
The people in society who pay they own way will end up living where they can afford to live, not throwing their toys out of the pram because they aspire to live in Foxrock but can't afford to.
As usual, we get the combined "wisdom" of Murphy and Boyd-Barrett demanding that those who are being subsidised by the taxpayer should be given greater choices in housing than the people who pay their own way.
I agree with some of this. People can apply to live where they like. they may be left on the list for many many years the more particular they are.
As it stands they are allowed refuse. That's the rules. Refuse too often they get bumped down the list.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Even if the rent isn't paid when the council house loan is paid off, the only cost is maintenance which is probably a lot less than paying HAP unless thousands of euro worth of maintenance is needed per month.
Arrears aren't as problematic as people think.
https://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-rents-4399149-Dec2018/
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-awarded-35000-after-breaking-ankle-in-back-yard-of-home-38004031.html
Compensation claims are more problematic than people think.0 -
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-awarded-35000-after-breaking-ankle-in-back-yard-of-home-38004031.html
Compensation claims are more problematic than people think.
This is akin to posting about an immigrant who availed of a tax rebate in a thread about giving immigrants the vote. Not relevant in the slightest.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/girl-awarded-35000-after-breaking-ankle-in-back-yard-of-home-38004031.html
Compensation claims are more problematic than people think.
Complaints were made to the Council and they didn't act. So the Council were clearly negligent. There's always a lot more behind these stories than the headline. Negligence always needs to be proven.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0
Advertisement